Santorum and Ashes
Posted on 22 February 2012
Happy Ash Wednesday, if that is the proper greeting for the advent of the season of repentance in ashes and mourning for our sins.
On the radio this morning, I heard what I thought was a Twilight Zone episode about a parallel universe in which the human race had never heard any Bible stories, fairytales, pagan epics, nor seen the movie TIME BANDITS nor read even a single history book of the long and sad and terrible history of the human race, and so had no idea that evil was real.
In this deliriously naive parallel world, the radio was chattering nervously about some politician who made a speech a few years ago, and made reference to the Supreme Being, and also to His adversary.
One liberal commentator, Lanny Davis, apologist for the Clintons, condemned the language as moralistic and judgmental; one conservative commentator, Anne Coulter, supporter of Romney, dismissed the talk as inappropriate and distracting, saying the Republicans should concentrate on debating economic issues and leave divine issues aside.
Everyone seemed as embarrassed for the politician as they might for a bride’s maid who farts during the ceremony.
The speech they were discussing was, of course, was this one:
In this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
Oh, sorry, my mistake. That is from the D-Day prayer given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Here, I found the speech they are talking about:
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
Boy, what a sourpuss and a Godbotherer. Someone being so judgmental, and actually accusing this great country of falling under the Divine Wrath and judgment of God, is such a negative view of this nation — it will not play well with the voters. In fact, this kind of moralizing is exclusionary, and unacceptable in our modern and enlightened …. uh …. Oops. Wrong again. That is from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural.
No, the speech they were discussing was given by Rick Santorum at Ave Maria University in Florida. Here are some excepts.
The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States, and that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.
[...]
Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in American tradition. He was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of “smart” people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, “because we’re smart;” and so academia a long time ago fell.
[...]
The next was the church. Now, you say, “Well, wait. The Catholic Church?” No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country, and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism. And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is a shambles.
So, in this weird parallel Twilight Zone in which I found myself, both liberal and conservative commentators thought it worthy of comment that a practicing Catholic when addressing a Catholic audience would rebuke the sins of pride, vanity and sensuality, particularly the pride of intellectuals as seen in the La trahison des Clercs — and then rebukes the Church for falling into disarray.
The queen of the Twilight Zone is Maureen Dowd, whose reaction was to quip: “Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola. That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.” and then to say “When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.”
This is what passes for wit in the Twilight Zone: to express disbelieving yet smug disdain that Christians do not celebrate and laud the sins of the flesh.
In this weird parallel Twilight Zone, no one had been to Sunday School, or listened to a sermon, or else they would have heard this same theme at least once in their lives.
Neither had they ever cracked a history book, or else they would have known Western Civilization was Christian.
So Santorum said that proud academics think they are smarter than everybody and deny the existence of truth. I seem to recall the same point being made by Ayn Rand fifty years ago, and GK Chesterton a hundred years ago: and I cannot think of two writers more starkly opposite than the jovial theist anti-capitalist Chesterton and the choleric atheist pro-capitalist Rand. If they agree on something, it must be as common as table salt and as obvious as sunlight.
I cannot even see anything controversial in the comments. It is about as outrageous as upbraiding the rich for their greed or the fashionable for their vanity to upbraid the intellectual for his arrogance. Upbraiding the Church for her disarray is not outrageous at all, it is the duty of all God-fearing men. The comments would be platitudes, except that the wording is new.
Is this it? Is this what has the Mainstream media going through its ritualized foaming at the mouth and rolling on the ground in pretended epileptic paroxysms of excessive emotion? This? Seriously?
Does the media actually think this is a winning political issue for their man? To mock and deride the Christian faith, and to dismiss the majority as uncouth lunatics? To dismiss the last millennium or two of Western civilization as unsightly crackpottery?
Well, it might work in the Twilight Zone, or the weird echo chamber where the Pauline Kaels of the world live, carefully insulated from meeting any real people who know about real life — which includes, by the way, a very real Devil, who has made very real progress in America in a shorter time that I would have believed possible.
Has the Prince of Darkness already won so many hearts and souls that the slightest mention of reality, and of the real war between darkness and light that rages every day in every life, as well as in the life of a great nation, is to greeted with shock and disbelief? Is all truth, and everything interesting, or exciting, or dangerous, to be scrupulously and fastidiously expunged from the public forum?
At least one liberal commentator says yes. Truth is too judgmental, too moralistic. At least one conservative commentator says yes. Truth is not a pocketbook issue: voters are more worried about their keeping their jobs and making their mortgage payment than they are about the nosedive of this once-great nation into the outer darkness of pride, vanity and sensuality, the cold and colorless treason of the intellectuals, the shambles of the scattered flock of Christ.
Meanwhile, back in reality, in the bright sunlight far from the Twilight Zone, today is a day to initiate the season of fasting and repentance. Perhaps the first thing for which we the people should repent was letting ourselves be led so far astray, to have forgotten both the light of heaven so completely and the darkness of hell, that any mention of such high things or profound strikes the ear not merely as odd, but ugly.
Have we forgotten Christ so completely that the mere mention of His name sounds like a faux pas to us, a breach of etiquette, a curse? Or the mere mention of the name of His adversary?
Let us by all means repent in ashes that we have allowed our nation to descend into such a swamp of worldliness that even to speak as all Christians always and everywhere have spoken is thought not merely impolite, but extraordinary.
If Christ indeed is forgotten so completely, ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
One of the good things about this campaign is that Ann Coulter has finally blown any kind of credibility she ever had. I had her pegged years ago, when she backed Mitt Romney and did everything in her power to destroy McCain, as a tool of the Republican establishment to manoeuvre the conservatives by using their language and attitudes while keeping them in Romneyite line; now her desperate Romneyizing has, if not opened eyes – too many people are saying that she has changed, whereas she is the same as she ever was – at least convinced people that today’s Coulter is out to lunch. Mind you, this is easier for me to say, because I am only interested in the conservative movement in so far as it is socially conservative.
Maybe Barry White will make a Jacob Marley-like appearance in Maureen Dowd’s bedroom some night and tell her how things really are. I’m sure it wouldn’t be what she’d be expecting from Barry White in her bedroom.
Unfortunately, unlike Ebenezer, she wouldn’t get beyond writing it off as indigestion.
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing us he didn’t exist”
That’s from The Usual Suspects, and that is true.
It occurs to even the likes of me, not as devout as John or many here, that to forget where Good, as well as where Evil comes from is a dangerous thing for a Civilization’s soul.
Rick Santorum is of course absolutely correct: secular liberals are nothing but puppets and useful idiots of the Dark Prince. As Paul alluded to, so diabolical is He, and so degenerate is our age, that He has even fooled many so-called “atheistic Satanists” into disbelieving in Him.
But the times they are a-changing, because in Satanic circles today it is the old-school, devil-worshipping, Ahriman-fearing theistic Satanists who are winning the hearts and minds of the youth, while the old LaVeyan moderates are in disarray and dying out. Perhaps they sense the nearness of the Antichrist in these apocalyptic times and are called to his master like never before.
For the record, I don’t belong to either camp and consider myself a “deistic Satanist” — i.e., I believe there is an evil, impersonal, all-powerful force at work in the universe which takes no interest in our fate, against which we struggle in vain, and which will eventually turn each of us and the cosmos itself into an eternal Void. I like to call this force “Dark Energy” or the “Black Sun”.
Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed this little discussion of Satanic theology – as always and in the spirit of the Adversary I strive to keep things fair and balanced.
Hail Satan (if you’re so inclined), and may the Dark Energy be with you!
It’s not impersonal. You are made in the image and likeness of God, my dear Sean. It hates you.
Excuse me, but I honestly can’t tell if the Black Sun is supposed to be God or the Adversary in this theology. Admittedly, that may be the point.
Anyway, while there may be certain philosophical reasons for arguing for opposition to God, it seems like a terribly impractical move by any definition. He’s going to win. Those on the side of God get everything, his enemies get nothing. That is assuming that Satanic theology and philosophy is correct, which I do not buy into, and only entertained it briefly when I was younger before coming to at least enough sense to realize that Lucifer’s entire point is his opposition to us.
Generally speaking, the only thing opposition to God gets you is pain, even if he is evil and an enemy of man. Considering Christian theology has him suffering extensively for the good of man that’s a rather strange view. At the very least he claims to take care of his own better than Satan. Infinitely better, strictly speaking.
To be scrupulously just, you don’t know that you will get only pain if you oppose God and He’s evil. He could be telling lies.
Of course, then you would have to wrestle with the notion that He made your conscience, which is where the incoherence really sets in.
As I understand it Satanists don’t actually have an alternative system though. It’s not like they say Heaven is a place of horror and Hell is a place of justice. They just switch sides. Gnosticism is closer to what you’re describing, which IMO has an even bigger trust problem than Christianity (which is honestly saying something).
I think the greatest trick the devil ever played was to make himself a comic figure. A red suit, horns, a trident, an arrow-pointed tail, wearing a little Van Dyck – he’s a real clown. So even if he does show up, it’s a big joke.
A religious man gives a religious speech to a religious audience. Mirabile dictu!
I imagine Roland Deschain of Gilead would admonish that “we have forgotten the face of our father.”
Personally I think that Santorum should be as pleased as punch that this is the worst thing anyone can dig up on him.
He is guilty of one unforgivable crime however: running in the Republican presidential primary while not being Ron Paul.
I think it’s fair to say that a good bulk of Americans, and almost all of our so-called “ruling class,” are Christ-phobic, if not God-phobic. They want “soft” religion that expects nothing of them in the way of rules, nor do they want anything even remotely resembling sacrifice, nor especially judgment. OOOO, JUDGMENT, ICKY! Because this would imply that they actually have to change their immoral, often carnal behavior.
If they accept Jesus at all, he comes in the form of a pot-smoking, dreadlocked, rastafarian socialist democrat wearing a tie-dyed t-shirt, ratty olive-drab Dockers, and use-worn birkenstock sandals. “It’s alright if it feels good, doncha know? Power to the people, brother!” Yup. Call him Dockers Jesus. Or Hip Jesus. He’s not the literal son of God, he’s just the first century’s version of Howard Zinn or Saul Alinsky. Thus Jesus is the original community organizer.
This is as far as the Christ-phobes are willing to go, in terms of embracing the real Christ, and they celebrate mocking and deriding everyone with a more “traditional” view of Him, as both literal Lord and Savior. He, who rebuked at the same time He forgave. “Go, and sin no more.” Only, the Christ-phobes delete the, “…sin no more,” part. Dreadfully inconvenient. So terrible. There’s no such thing as sin! Everybody knows that!
Only, we seem to be rapidly installing a whole host of modern “sins” to replace the old ones??
It is a sin to have less-than-fuzzy feelings about homosexual activity.
It is a sin to believe hard work deserves more monetary reward than no work.
It is a sin to believe that the government is not Robin Hood.
It is a sin to believe that discussion of the old “sin” has any place in popular discourse.
It is a sin to be Republican.
It is a sin to desire superior meritocratic schooling for our children.
It is a sin to question whether or not Islam in America has deep internal contradictions which threaten our liberal modernity.
It is a sin to question Islam at all — question Catholicism all you want, that’s totally cool, Catholics don’t blow you up; unless it’s the Irish thing.
It is a sin to want everything you’ve earned in your life to pass to your descendents without “redistribution” by the state.
It is a sin to eat large portions.
It is a sin to want to teach the poor and the destitue to fish, instead of letting the state give them all fish out of your own nets.
And so on, and so forth. The Church of Secularisation — “The Cee of Seck” — rules our popular conscience and consciousness. Public expression of traditionally-flavored Judeo-Christendom is to be banished to the closets, while that which formerly hid in the closet — what The Host has often called perversion — is brought out and put up on a pedestal, like the proverbial golden calf. Dockers Jesus smiles on. His gay-trans husband, too.
Most people who like Jesus and can’t stand his church — actually like the notion of Jesus they have — carefully cut down to taste.
You forgot: “It is a sin to suggest that women and men are not equivalent”
I’d say “believe,” not merely suggest. Even if you don’t say it, you’re still committing double-plus-ungood thoughtcrime.
” Memento, homo, quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris. ” Are people hearing for the first time what real Catholics actually believe? It seems so to me. And I take heart because of it. What must an average person wonder seeing or hearing the whited sepulcher media mocking genuine, unafraid to speak, Faith? If one is thinking of choosing sides, who wants to side with mockery and scorn? I side with the One scorned and mocked. Those others, they have their reward. “IHS”
Slow news day maybe? In all honesty, should we expect anything less from Dowd and her ilk? She is always like this, but Ann Coulter? Now I would not have expected that from her. Then again, in modern America, money always trumps God.
Still, your right John, Santorum broke no new ground in that speech, it was pretty basic, no one, right or left, should have thought it out of the ordinary, let alone condemn it.
“Does the media actually think this is a winning political issue for their man? To mock and deride the Christian faith, and to dismiss the majority as uncouth lunatics? To dismiss the last millennium or two of Western civilization as unsightly crackpottery?”
Well the left has been doing that for centuries and it seems to have worked for them…
I believe this is something Santorum said a number of years ago; and that Maureen Dowd has since transitioned to a state in which she can confirm the truth or falsity of the propositions directly. IOW, a REALLY slow news day.
This is, as always, the permanent attack on all that is religious by the worldlies, and particularly at this time when there is almost only the Catholic Church to seriously bar the way to your fascists wanting to trample the First Amendment.
They don’t attack all that is religious. One is given special clearance in honor of its common focus of hatred. I would suspect by this that it is not specifically faith or a (generic) god, they oppose or religion at all. The objection is to something else. They are against Western Civilization. You are the biggest target. I’d gladly have my philosophy stand up and take the hits, but that would be merely feeding the lions.
(In a cryptic mood, but it is clear, right?)
Thank you for correcting me. I should have written, “all that is Christian”, or “all that upholds truth”. We are indeed the biggest target because we are closely related to Western Civilization and Truth on our Mother’s side, more so when we speak up. As for the other sort of persecutors you allude to, bullies often side with one another, being all fundamentally liars. Thanks also for your chivalrous thought to have your philosophy take the hits, although it might not be a great help. But who knows? We were promised by the Truth in person that hell would never prevail against our Mother…
“He that giveth peace unto us,
Not as the world giveth;
He that giveth law unto us,
Not as the scribes;
Shall he be softened for the softening of the cities,
Patient in usury, delicate in bribes?
They that come to quiet us–
Saying the sword is broken–
Break men with famine,
Fetter them with gold,
Sell them as sheep;
And he shall know the selling.
For he was more than murdered:
He was sold.”
-”To St. Michael in Time of Peace” by G.K. Chesterton
The most depressing thing about it is not even the wickedness; it is the pitiful ignorance, worthy of a five-year-old, but insisted in as a virtue. If Spinoza, Voltaire and Ingersoll could see what they have ended up by way of intellectual descendants, they’d scuttle back into the Church (or the Synagogue in Spinoza’s case) and apologize abjectly.
A blessed Lent to all.
I don’t know, John. You come off sounding awfully judgmental and moralistic.
Do you judge to be judgmental to be immoral then? A pretty paradox.
I am glad Leftists never voice disapprove of those who break the fashion-conscious ever-changing rules of Political Correctness. So it is bigoted to voice disapproval or honor killing? Or is it sexism to not to voice disapproval of honor killings? The moralism of those who believe morals are subjective is hard to fathom.